World Applied Sciences Journal 2 (6): 635-643, 2007

ISSN 1818-4952
IDOSI Publications, 2007

Earthquake Amplification Factors for Self-supporting 4-legged Telecommunication Towers

1
G. Ghodrati Amiri, 2M.A. Barkhordari, 3S.R. Massah and 3M.R. Vafaei

1
Center of Excellence for Fundamental Studies in Structural Engineering,
College of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran
2
College of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran
3
Department of Civil Engineering, Mazandaran University of Science & Technology, Babol, Iran

Abstract: Telecommunication towers are among the few steel structures that little attention has been paid to
their seismic behavior in existing design codes. Due to lack of design provisions, the designers apply the
existing building design codes to telecommunication towers. However, the seismic behavior and response of
telecommunication towers is very different from that of building structures. For example, the base shear values
obtained for telecommunication towers using the building codes is much higher than what it actually is. In
this research, for obtaining the seismic amplification factors, ten of the existing self-supporting four-legged
telecommunication towers in Iran with heights ranging from 18 to 67 meters are selected. Then, strong motion
earthquakes are applied to these towers in both vertical and horizontal directions. By performing linear
dynamic analysis, the base shear and vertical response of the towers are calculated. Dividing the obtained
base shear or the vertical response by the product of the tower mass and maximum horizontal and/or vertical
acceleration components will result in seismic amplification factors of both horizontal and vertical earthquake
components. At the end, by drawing the amplification factors versus the fundamental flexural mode and the
first axial mode of the towers, relations for estimating the base shear and the vertical response of the
telecommunication towers are obtained.

Key words: Earthquake amplification factors linear time-history analysis self-supporting 4-legged
telecommunication towers

INTRODUCTION Generally, telecommunication towers are divided into

With advances in the telecommunication industry,
the use of telecommunication towers is rapidly increasing.
Yet, sufficient and consistent information regarding the
seismic analysis of such structures, which their
serviceability after the occurrence of natural disasters
must be preserved, is not available.
Most studies performed up to now are related to
either guyed masts or 3-legged self-supporting towers.
The studies related to 4-legged self-supporting towers are
rare if non-existence. More over, most of the design
standards available on this subject introduce only few
general guidelines instead of introducing some empirical
relations useful for engineers.
two categories of self-supporting and guyed towers. The
self-supporting towers are divided into lattice towers
and monopoles. The latticed self-supporting towers
are either 3-legged or 4-legged. The connection types are
mainly bolts and nuts. The sections usually used as
primary and secondary members are hot-rolled angles.
BACKGROUND
Generally, the studies performed on
telecommunication towers are divided into two categories
of wind and earthquake loadings and the corresponding
response of the towers to such loadings. In the early
stages of telecommunication tower design, due to the

Corresponding Author: Prof. G. Ghodrati Amiri, Center of Excellence for Fundamental Studies in Structural Engineering,
College of Civil Engineering, Iran University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 16765-163, Narmak,
Tehran 16846, Iran
635
 World Appl. Sci. J., 2 (6): 635-643, 2007

lightness and height of such structures, much of the Table 1: Properties of the selected earthquake records as the base excitation
of towers in this study
research efforts were focused on wind loading and its
Record DUR. Soil
combination with ice. Nevertheless, in recent years,
No. Station (sec) Year mb Ms FD ED Class
more attention is being paid to earthquake loading
1347-4 SIRCH 18.6 89 5.6 5.7 32 38 1
because of the high seismicity level of many regions 1425 SIRCH 7.66 92 4.6 3.9 15 8 1
where the towers are installed. In the latest editions of 1492-16 ZARRAT 43.5 94 5.8 5.8 18 26 1
worlds most advanced design codes, the topic of 1043 GHAEN 19.54 76 5.8 6.4 10 10 1
earthquake loading on such structures has been included. 1084-48 TABAS 15.24 78 4.9 4.8 10 64 1
1082-1 DEYHUK 58.4 78 6.7 7.3 17 37 1
Konno and Kimura [1] presented one of the first
1492-6 ZARRAT 33.24 94 5.5 5.3 16 15 1
studies on the effects of earthquake loads on lattice
1519-4 ZARRAT 20.44 94 5.0 4.5 16 29 1
telecommunication towers atop buildings. The objective 1084-21 TABAS 12.39 78 4.9 4.5 10 21 1
of their work was to obtain the mode shapes, the 1084-46 TABAS 16.16 78 5.0 4.7 22 17 1
natural frequencies, and the damping properties of such
structures. Simulation of a stick model of the tower using Table 2: Peak ground acceleration, peak ground velocity and related A/V
lumped masses and a viscous damping ratio of 1% was ratio of the selected records
Record No. PGA
used in their studies. It was observed that in some of the m PGA s
members, the forces due to earthquake were greater than PGV
s PGV v
those due to wind. 1347-4 0.068g 0.0312 2.18g
Mikus [2] investigated the seismic response of six 1425 0.051g 0.0186 2.74g
3-legged self-supporting telecommunication towers with 1492-16 0.156g 0.115 1.35g
heights ranging from 20 to 90 meters. The selected 1043 0.13g 0.108 1.2g
towers were numerically simulated as bare towers without 1084-48 0.143g 0.0495 2.88g
1082-1 0.324g 0.195 1.66g
considering the antennas and other accessories attached
149-6 0.224g 0.083 2.69g
to them. Three earthquake accelerograms were considered 1519-4 0.067g 0.0174 3.85g
as input in the analysis. It was concluded that modal 1084-21 0.125g 0.0436 2.86g
superposition with the lowest four modes of vibration 1084-46 0.099g 0.0472 2.09g
would ascertain sufficient precision.
Much research has been performed to obtain the acceleration of greater than 0.05 g. All the earthquake
fundamental frequencies of self-supporting towers (e.g. accelerograms are assumed to be recorded on type I
Sackmann [3]). In most of these studies, the research was ground, according to the Iranian seismic code of practice
focused on 3-legged towers and very few studies have [9]. Furthermore, the A/V ratio (peak ground acceleration
been conducted on 4-legged towers. For this reason, in to peak ground velocity) has been employed as a dynamic
this paper, the dynamic sensitivity of ten existing 4-legged parameter for the selection of earthquake records. In
self-supporting telecommunication towers subjected to this research the grouping of the records is based on
wind and earthquake loadings have been investigated. the research done by Tso et al. [10].
In order to obtain methods for simplifying the seismic The selected records along with their characteristics
analysis of telecommunication towers, Khedr [4, 5] are shown in Table 1. As it is shown in the table, both
introduced a modified method for obtaining horizontal near field and far field records are included in the selected
and vertical acceleration profiles. In his method, for every set of records. The maximum longitudinal acceleration
specified 3-legged tower a separate acceleration profile and velocity of the records along with their A/V ratios are
can be obtained. Moreover, in TIA/EIA code [6], CSA given in Table 2. The vertical components of the records
code [7], and most recently in ASCE [8], provisions for are employed as the vertical excitation of the towers.
seismic design of towers have been included.
TOWERS USED IN THIS RESEARCH
THE EARTHQUAKE ACCELEROGRAM RECORDS
USED IN THIS RESEARCH Ten of the existing self-supporting 4-legged latticed
steel towers, which have been erected at different
Ten earthquake records obtained from five different locations in Iran, were selected for this study. The
regions are selected to be employed as the tower base geometrical characteristics of these towers are illustrated
excitations. All the records include a maximum ground in Table 3. In addition, in Table 4, one can observe the

636
 World Appl. Sci. J., 2 (6): 635-643, 2007

Table 3: Geometry of the selected towers Estimating the tower base shear using Iranian Seismic
Ltotal (m) Top width(m) Base width(m) Ltaper (m) Code (ISC): Fundamental differences exist between the
18 2 3.4 10 structural behavior of telecommunication towers and
22 2 3.9 14 building structures. The greatest response of buildings
25 2 4.3 17 occurs in their first vibration mode, while, in
30 2 5.0 22 telecommunication towers at least the first four modes of
35 2 5.7 27
vibration have to be considered for achieving reliable
42 2 6.7 34
results [4]. Additionally, the seismic design level for
48 2 7.6 40
common building structures is to prevent the structure
54 2 8.4 46
from collapse, but in telecommunication towers, the
60 2 9.3 52
67 2 10.3 59
seismic design level must be immediate serviceability
after occurrence of a strong earthquake. In order to
Table 4: Weight characteristics of the selected towers
observe the difference between the results obtained by
Tower Actual Nominal Actual weight Modified
using the equivalent static method and the results
Height Weight Weight ---------------------- Material
obtained by the dynamic analysis, tower base shears are
(m) (kgf) (kgf) Nominal weight Density(kgf/m3) evaluated using both methods. At first stage, the base
18 4072 2547 1.599 12551 shears, using the equivalent static method from the
22 5651 3513 1.609 12627 Iranian seismic code are evaluated.
25 6791 4195 619.1 12707
30 8670 5590 551.1 12174 V = CW (1)
35 10721 7223 484.1 11652
42 13366 9448 415.1 11105 Where;
48 16700 11873 407.1 11041 C = ABI/R (2)
54 20271 14497 398.1 10976 A = 0.35 design base acceleration for high
60 24627 17640 396.1 10959 seismic risk zone
67 29513 21660 3631. 10696 I = 1.2 importance factor
R=1 structural behavior factor
nominal and actual weights of the selected towers. In this B = 2.5(T0/T) structural seismic response factor
study, the actual weights of towers have been considered T0 = 0.4 ground type factor for type I
which includes non-structural accessories such as
ladders, feeders, etc. The three-dimensional numerical At second stage, the base shears, using the response
modeling of towers is based on the assumption that spectra of Tabas, Manjil, and Naghan earthquakes
elements are mass less. To include the weight of are computed. The results are illustrated in Figure 1.
accessories in the overall tower weight, the element
material densities are modified. The tower legs are 250000
assumed to be fixed at the foundation. The bracing and 200000
leg members are modeled as truss and beam elements,
150000
respectively.
100000
ANALYSIS METHOD 50000

Linear dynamic approach has been employed for 0

T18 T22 T25 T30 T35 T42 T48 T54 T60 T67
tower analysis. For this purpose, time history acceleration Tower types
records are translated to SAP2000 [11] format. Using the Base shear using ISC spectrum
first twenty modes of vibration, the modal mass Base shear using Tabas spectrum
Base shear using Manjil spectrum
participation of all towers in flexural modes and axial Base shear using Naghan spectrum
modes reaches to more than 90 percent and 85 percent,
respectively. The damping ratio used in all modes is equal Fig. 1: Comparison of tower base shears obtained using
to 3 percent as suggested by IASS [12], i.e. for towers response spectra of Manjil, Tabas and Naghan
with regular bolt/nut connections. earthquakes with base shears obtained using
equivalent static method

637
 World Appl. Sci. J., 2 (6): 635-643, 2007
200000 Static method (ISC)
Dynamic method (ISC)
250000
150000
100000
50000
T18 T22 T25 T30 T35 T42 T48 T54 T60 T67
Tower types
Fig. 2: Comparison of tower base shears obtained using dynamic time-history approach with base shears obtained using
static equivalent method
150000
First three flexural modes
First twenty modes
100000

50000

0
T18 T22 T25 T30 T35 T42 T48 T54 T60 T67
Tower types
Fig. 3: Comparison of tower base shears using Tabas response spectrum; considering the first three flexural modes and
the first twenty modes

First three flexural modes

120000 First twenty modes
100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
T18 T22 T25 T30 T35 T42 T48 T54 T60 T67
Tower types

Fig. 4: Comparison of tower base shears using Naghan spectrum; considering the first three flexural modes and the first
twenty modes

120000 First three flexural modes

100000 First twenty modes
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
T18 T22 T25 T30 T35 T42 T48 T54 T60 T67
Tower types

Fig. 5: Comparison of tower base shears using Manjil spectrum; considering the first three flexural modes and the first
twenty modes

It is observed that the results obtained from the first
method are much higher than that in the second method.
Figure 2, also, illustrates the results of the first static
method compared with that of the design spectrum from
the Iranian seismic code.
Investigating the number of necessary vibration modes
required for dynamic analysis of self-supporting 4-legged
towers: To investigate the necessary number of vibration
modes for dynamic analysis of 4-legged self-supporting
towers, three different approaches have been employed
for evaluating tower base shears. First, using the
response spectrum method, the three spectra of Tabas,
Manjil, and Naghan earthquakes are applied for obtaining
the base shears, by considering only the first fundamental
vibration mode. Second, using the same spectrum, the
first three flexural vibration modes are considered for
evaluating the tower base shears. Third, the first twenty
vibration modes are considered for calculating the tower
base shears. Figures 3 to 5 compare the base shears

638
 World Appl. Sci. J., 2 (6): 635-643, 2007

140000 First flexural mode

120000 First three flexural modes

100000
80000
60000
40000
20000
0
T18 T22 T25 T30 T35 T42 T48 T54 T60 T67
Tower types

Fig. 6: Comparison of tower base shears using Tabas response spectrum; considering the first flexural mode and the
first three flexural modes
100000
First flexural mode
90000 First three flexural modes
80000
70000
60000
50000
40000
30000
20000
10000
0
T18 T22 T25 T30 T35 T42 T48 T54 T60 T67
Tower types
Fig. 7: Comparison of tower base shears using Naghan response spectrum; considering the first flexural mode and the
first three flexural modes
120000
First flexural mode
100000 First three flexural modes

80000

60000

40000

20000

0
T18 T22 T25 T30 T35 T42 T48 T54 T60 T67
Tower types
Fig. 8: Comparison of tower base shears using Manjil response spectrum; considering the first flexural mode and the
first three flexural modes

obtained by employing the second and third approaches. Figures 6 to 8, the tower base shears obtained by
As one can observe, small differences exists in base considering only the fundamental flexural mode has been
shear results obtained by the two latter approaches. In compared with the base shears obtained by considering

639
 World Appl. Sci. J., 2 (6): 635-643, 2007

the first three flexural vibration modes. As it is shown, 0.7

First flexural mode period
considering only the first flexural mode in the dynamic
0.6 Second flexural mode period
analysis of towers, results in smaller base shear values as Third flexural mode period
compared with the actual base shear values. 0.5
0.4
Investigating the towers natural vibration modes and 0.3
periods: Since SAP2000 software has no limitations
0.2
regarding the number of vibration modes considered in
analysis, therefore, the first twenty modes of vibration 0.1
have been considered in the dynamic analysis in this 0.0
study. By investigating mode shapes, natural periods T18 T22 T25 T30 T35 T42 T48 T54 T60 T67
Tower types
and percent mass participations, the following results
are concluded: Fig. 9: Tower natural periods with respect to each of the
first three flexural modes
By increasing tower height, natural period of the
first flexural mode increases from 0.17 seconds for 0.16 First torsional mode period
0.14 Second torsional mode period
the 18-meter tower to 0.58 seconds for the 67-meter
0.12 Third torsional mode period
tower. It is observed in Fig. 9 that the second and
0.10
third flexural modes also increase as the tower height
0.08
increases. In addition, the difference between the
0.06
natural periods of the first and second flexural
0.04
modes increases as the tower height increases. This 0.02
conclusion also stands for the natural periods of the 0.00
second and third flexural modes. T18 T22 T25 T30 T35 T42 T48 T54 T60 T67
Tower types
The first torsional mode for towers shorter than 30
meters occurs in the third mode of vibration, while for Fig. 10: Tower natural periods with respect to each of the
taller towers it occurs in the fifth mode. first three torsional modes
The first axial mode for towers with heights of 18 and
22 meters occurs in the sixth mode while for other 0.01
towers it occurs in the ninth mode. 0.08
Since the effective modal mass participation in some 0.06
of the flexural modes has quantities in both
0.04
orthogonal directions, thus applying seismic forces
in directions inclined to each tower face, other than 0.02
the perpendicular directions, seems necessary. 0.00
T18 T22 T25 T30 T35 T42 T48 T54 T60 T67
It is shown in Fig. 10 that as the tower height Tower types
increases, the natural periods in first, second, and
third torsional modes decreases, in contrary to the Fig. 11: Tower natural periods with respect to the first
increase in flexural modes. In addition, the difference axial mode
in natural periods for the first two torsional modes in
shorter towers is more than that in taller towers. of necessary modes to consider the first three flexural
As shown in Fig. 11, the natural period for the first modes decreases. Thus, it can be concluded that the
axial mode increases with the increase in tower number of vibration modes required for a satisfactory
height. dynamic analysis of the selected towers would be the
The first three flexural modes, for the 18 and 22-meter first nine modes of vibration.
towers, occurs in first nine vibration modes, for It is observed that the percent mass participation of
towers with heights of 25 and 30 meters, it occurs in the first three flexural modes reaches 90 percent, and,
first eight vibration modes, and for the remaining hence it can be concluded that the first three flexural
towers, it occurs in first seven vibration modes. vibration modes are sufficient for the dynamic
Therefore, as the tower height increases, the number analysis of towers. Figure 12 shows that the first

640
 World Appl. Sci. J., 2 (6): 635-643, 2007

First flexural mode 200000

First three flexural modes
100 150000
2
100000 R = 0.871
80
50000
60 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
40 PGA (m/s 2)
20 Fig. 13: Correlation factor of the base shear and the peak
0 ground accelerations for the 67-meter tower
T18 T22 T25 T30 T35 T42 T48 T54 T60 T67
Tower types 200000
150000 2
R = 0.1466
Fig. 12: Towers percent mass participation considering 100000
the first flexural mode and the first three flexural 50000
0
modes 0 10 20 30 40
A/V (1/s)
flexural mode contributes only to 60 percent of the Fig. 14: Correlation factor of the base shear and the A/V
total mass being participated in the dynamic analysis. ratio for the 67-meter tower
Additionally, while considering the first three flexural
200000
modes in the analysis, as the tower height increases, 150000 2
the percent modal mass participation of towers will R = 0.8005
100000
decrease. 50000
0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
SEISMIC EXCITATION OF TOWERS FOR PGV (m/s)
EVALUATING THE EARTHQUAKE AMPLIFICATION Fig. 15: Correlation factor of the base shear and the peak
FACTORS ground velocity for the 67-meter tower

Horizontal earthquake force component: At the 2 R

2

1.5
beginning, all the towers undergo base excitations
1
using the ten selected records for obtaining maximum 0.5
base shears by applying the time-history method of 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
analysis. Next, for determining the relation between Tower fundamental periods (sec)
tower base shear and peak ground acceleration (A),
peak ground velocity (V), and A/V ratio, Figures 13 to Fig. 16: Correlation of towers earthquake amplification
15 are depicted for the 67-meter tower. In each case, factors and natural fundamental periods
by applying linear regression analysis, the related
correlation factors are calculated. A strong correlation Vh = Mah(-1.85T f+1.9) (3)
exists between the tower base shear and peak ground
acceleration, as well as the peak ground velocity; though Where;
the relation between tower base shear and A/V ratio Vh = maximum tower base shear (N)
seems to be weak. Based on the results obtained by M = tower mass (kg)
regression analysis, the horizontal earthquake Ah = peak horizontal ground acceleration (m/sec2)
amplification factors are described by the ratio of Tf = fundamental flexural period of towers (sec)
maximum base shear to the product of tower mass and
horizontal peak ground acceleration. The amplification Vertical earthquake force component: Vertical
factors are evaluated for the selected set of records and components of the set of earthquake records are applied
then depicted against the fundamental flexural period to towers as the vertical base excitation. For this purpose,
of each tower as shown in Fig. 16. Using the linear after performing the linear dynamic time-history analysis,
regression analysis, the following relation is obtained the vertical tower reactions are evaluated. Tower base
for estimating tower base shear with respect to its reactions and peak vertical ground accelerations are
fundamental flexural period: depicted in Fig. 17 for the 67-meter tower. A strong

641
 World Appl. Sci. J., 2 (6): 635-643, 2007

200000
The number of mode shapes needed for
150000 2
R = 0.955 consideration in a dynamic analysis, for a more
100000 precise and accurate results, are at least the first
50000
0 three flexural modes. Considering only the first
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 vibration mode will result in much less base shear
PGA (vertical) 1/s
values than in reality.
Fig. 17: Correlation of the maximum vertical base reaction Weight of non-structural accessories mounted on
and vertical peak acceleration for the 67-meter towers should be included in the model analysis,
tower since the actual total weight of each tower, including
the weight of all accessories, is 30 to 60 percent more
2.5 R2 = 0.83 than the tower nominal weight.
2.0
1.5 The results of frequency analysis of towers
1.0 show that by increasing tower height, the natural
0.5
0.0 vibration period of the fundamental flexural mode
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.12 and the first axial mode will increase, whereas the
First axial mode periods
period of the first torsional mode decreases. In
Fig. 18: Correlation between earthquake amplification addition, as the tower height increases, the first axial
factors (for vertical components) and first axial and torsional modes occur in higher modes.
modes Since, in some of the flexural modes, the effective
mass signifies in both principle directions, applying
correlation exists between tower base reaction and peak the seismic forces in directions other than the
principal directions seems necessary.
vertical ground acceleration (R2=0.87). Based on the
Strong correlation exists between the maximum tower
results obtained from the regression analysis, the
base shear and peak horizontal ground acceleration
earthquake amplification factor for the vertical tower
and peak horizontal ground velocity. However, the
reaction is described as the ratio of maximum vertical
relation between tower base shear and A/V ratio is
reaction (P) to the product of tower mass and peak vertical
week.
ground acceleration (MAV). The tower amplification
According to the relation determined for estimating
factors are calculated for the selected set of records and
the tower base shear, (Eq. 3), as the tower
then depicted against the first axial period of towers as
fundamental period increases (in other words as
shown in Fig. 18. Applying the linear regression analysis,
the tower height increases), the tower seismic
the following relation is obtained for estimating tower
amplification factor decreases. Meaning that if
vertical base reactions: considering two towers with identical mass and
on same ground conditions, ex., placed on bedrock,
P = MA V (28.96Ta -0.35) (4) the tower with higher period for first flexural mode
of vibration will have smaller base shear.
Where; Strong correlation exists between the maximum tower
P= tower vertical reaction (N) vertical base reaction and peak vertical ground
M= tower mass (kg) acceleration. This correlation is weak when
AV= peak vertical ground acceleration (m/sec2) considering peak horizontal ground acceleration.
Ta= first axial period of tower (sec) According to the relation obtained for estimating the
maximum tower vertical base reaction, (Eq. 4), as the
Summary of results: By a thorough investigation of the period of the first axial mode increases, the tower
results obtained in this study the followings can be seismic amplification factor increases.
concluded:
REFERENCES
The tower base shears obtained by using the
equivalent static method are much higher than the 1. Konno, T., and E. Kimura, 1973. Earthquake effects
values obtained by dynamic analysis. Therefore, the on steel tower structures atop buildings. Proceedings
existing relations in the building codes are not of the 5th World Conference on Earthquake
appropriate for use in latticed tower design. Engineering, Rome, Italy, Vol. 1: 184-193.

642
 World Appl. Sci. J., 2 (6): 635-643, 2007

2. Mikus, J. 1994. Seismic analysis of self-supporting 7. CSA., 1994. Antennas, towers, and antenna-
telecommunication towers, M. Eng. Project supporting structures. Standard CSA S37-94,
Report G94-10. Department of Civil Engineering Canadian Standards Association, Etobicoke,
and Applied Mechanics, McGill University, Ontario, Canada.
Montreal, Canada. 8. ASCE. Madugula, M.K.S. Dynamic Response of
3. Sackmann, V., 1996. Prediction of natural frequencies Lattice Towers and Guyed Masts, Task Committee on
and mode shapes of self-supporting lattice the Dynamic Response of Lattice Towers, American
telecommunication towers, M. Eng. Project, 1996. Society of Civil Engineers, 2001.
Department of Civil Engineering and Applied 9. Iranian Code of Practice for Seismic Resistant Design
Mechanics, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. of Buildings, Standard No. 2800, 2 nd edition, Building
4. Khedr, M.A., and G. McClure, 2000. A simplified & Housing Research Center, Tehran, Iran, 1999.
method for seismic analysis of lattice 10. Tso, W.K., T.J. Zhu, and A.C. Heidebrecht, 1992.
telecommunication towers. Canadian Journal of Engineering implication of ground motion A/V
Civil Engineering, 27: 533-542. ratio. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering,
5. Khedr, M.A., and G. McClure, 1999. Earthquake 11(3): 133-144.
amplification factors for self-supporting 11. Wilson, E.L., and A. Habibullah, 1999. SAP2000
telecommunication towers, Canadian Journal of Users Manual. Computers & Structures, Inc.,
Civil Engineering, 26(2): 208-215. Berkeley, California.
6. TIA/EIA-222-F. Structural Standards for Steel 12. IASS. Recommendations for guyed masts. Madrid,
Antenna Towers and Antenna Supporting Spain: International Association for Shell and Spatial
Structures, 1996. American National Standard Structures; Working Group No. 4, 1981.
Institute.

643